Do not spin things into black and white. Never have I explicitly blamed any individual.

... classic blaming the victim

Such bullshit. Blaming the victim can only be comprehended a phenomenon to those who see the world in strict, binary terms. I.e. the radical Ayatollah in discussion, you (don't take offense), etc; those who seek to dichotomise every facet of reality: into good and evil, black and white, etc. It was not either Rushdie's fault or the Ayatollah's fault, it was both their faults, to varying degrees, if you must limit the blame to only two people.

I.e. [examples]

What the heck is this? For every example you give, there can be provided an example not unlike yours but different enough that you'd reduce the conclusion to a matter of prudence over principle. E.g. I'll not jump onto the traintracks to save a rat. There's an old term apropos to this: phronesis. Do you think people yearn, in their pursuits, for undesirable outcomes (so much so that you could spin their failure into them WANTING it)? There's no such thing as that, or it's not very likely. Nobody WANTS the actualisation of an undesirable outcome, the misfortune of contingency, but they should absolutely be prepared to face it should they pursue the end whose means invite such possibility. If they're not willing to take on such risk, then yes, they should certainly abstain from such pursuit. Your examples should read:

-If the protesters didn't want [were not prepared] to be water cannoned, they should have stayed home...

-If Nelson Mandela didn't want [was not prepared] to be imprisoned, he should have accepted Apartheid...

-If Galileo didn't want [was not prepared] to be persecuted he should have learned to toe the line...

This is not victim blaming. This is the weighing of risks against rewards, and these people have clearly accepted that bearing such risk, that being victim to the actualisation of such risks, is worth the pursuit of such reward. On the other hand, saving a rat on the traintracks is not worth the risk; winning money might not be worth the risk of losing it, or maybe it is; this is the great gamble of life. Most of us, we're safe -- prudent, if you will -- but we often find ourselves foolishly playing on feelings and emotion (e.g. protestors who don't expect resistance). The people who serve as your shining examples, they're those who were willing to bear the risks their causes brought, who were willing to put their proponents in the face of similar risk (proponents who hopefully understood this fact); but don't forget, for every handful of heroes, there's the nameless hoi polloi who tried and ultimately failed. I don't see you championing any of them, which, not to slight you in any way, isn't surprising in the least --focalism is a thing, and it colours our perception of things: it makes heroes look more like heroes and less like competent gamblers who got a lucky break.

So help then! Or at least offer praise.

How will my posting on reddit render any assistance to Rushdie? I am no one; my words mean nothing. And what does praise have to do with anything? Those who're getting upvoted aren't, through the singular act of posting, any more helpful than I am being (maybe the person who recommended Joseph Anton is being somewhat helpful).

How dare you shrug at the threat of murder on a man for speaking his mind?

Speaking his mind? It really depends on what was on his mind doesn't it? Anyways, I did not shrug at such threats; it's a very serious thing to issue a global death threat or have such a threat issued against you. As a matter of fact, I didn't shrug at all, so don't put a spin on everything I say or do -- on anything! for that matter. All I did was point out that one should be prepared for the consequences their actions may bring, very much in tune with what John Le Carre was saying (this is what compelled my conversation, when someone spun what John Le Carre had to say and thus implied his thinking of religious institution as inviolable, which might be true to his thinking, but wasn't evident in the statement offered, wherein the latter half was ignored so as to distort the intent of his words).

As if this is simply a law of nature, as if those making the threats are the mindless "snakes" of your analogy. They are not!

Really. You cannot control others any more than you can a snake. Like a snake has its own will, man has his. However! you could certainly attempt to subdue the man, as you would a snake -- defanging it, sewing its mouth shut, drugging it, etc. This is essentially what the Ayatollah was doing in his death threat to Rushdie, short of outright having him successfully assassinated. Some people think that way when dealing with snakes. They're afraid. Then there are those who think every snake can be trained -- in spite of a life, prior to captivity, built on animal instincts (or radical indoctrination) -- but there will always be recalcitrant snakes -- and people, people too. You cannot control people just like you cannot control a snake. You could certainly try.

They are human beings and responsible for their actions, including the issuance of assassination orders.

Fucking hell. This really grates me. Why do you insist on seeing things in only black and white (I.e. If one blames Rushdie, they must have internally absolved the Ayatollah and his cronies)? As if I discounted them from any responsibility. Both parties bear the blame. And frankly, not taking any action would have been seen as an irresponsible inertia, to them at least; stop projecting your ideas of right and wrong to others (While your ideas of right and wrong may certainly be right, and theirs, wrong, don't expect them to know any better, forasmuchas they certainly think they're the ones who are correct. They are animals as are we, snakes to the other.). Nevertheless, while the Ayatollah and his cronies should rightly bear the brunt of the blame, Rushdie was the one who stuck his hand in the cage. As one should be held responsible for the bite, the other should be held accountable for offering his hand and the taste for blood.

Precisely. Satisfy yourself with the answer you want. It's very unambiguous to me (of course).

if you live in an insane and violent world, don't challenge it, accept it and learn to censor yourself

Not quite. By all means, challenge big things. Just don't be surprised if you're boxed back by fists bigger than your own. Some people quite enjoy living dangerously you know (and don't quite care enough for those who're passively hurt, for that matter).

As I suspected. I have my opinions on that specific matter: my not saying anything of it should suffice for an answer.

That said, don't put this kind of tawdry spin on everything. One can say:

"Don't feed the snake if you don't wanna get bit,"

and anyone prudent would agree, in spite of it being almost -- almost -- the same thing. But as much as they're the same thing, there's a slight, subtle difference, just as my "victim blaming" is marginally different from the tasteless example you've provided (on behalf of another). Seriously, taking a walk in the jungle is quite a remove away from actually deciding to feed the snake in the jungle -- and feed it, mind you; the intentions aren't necessarily malicious. (By the way, we're speaking of Rushdie here, so don't confuse our subject for the passive victims that suffered this debacle, especially those who bore no direct association.)

This is all besides the point; I'm actually just accommodating for all you petty pharisees who see the world in black and white. Stop creating this bullshit false dichotomy where there is none.

Not necessarily. In some ways, physical labour is quite peaceful for the mind (granted the conditions aren't too extreme), or at least the physical aspect of it distracts you enough. Labour that doesn't have the physical disport is real fuckery to the mind -- you get so mentally exhausted, and that's despite the job's mindlessness.

Depending on the person, "non-physical" labour hurts just as much as physical labour. Nobody rewards you for your pain; and quite contrary to its name, hard labour is by no means "harder".

Not depending on the person, physical labour is taxing towards your health much more so than the less physical alternative. It's not surprising the hard labourer should require a premium to insure himself / herself against the accrual of liabilities that are par for the course with such jobs.

Data entry, telemarketing, call centre operation, secretarial work, etc. Basically anything that's achieved through the wherewithals of mentally menial, low-skilled labour; which is not to say they're not physically demanding (sitting in a chair for prolonged periods of time, etc.), just that their physical demands are passive and most likely incidentals of the job. If there must absolutely be some kind of distinction, you could say that while blue-collar jobs are physically laborious, pink-collar and some low-skilled white-collar positions are laborious in a non-physical capacity.

It's quite impossible to post in this subreddit without someone calling you out for omitting this or that group of interest isn't it? Fuck me.

Do not misconstrue my words. Or maybe you're deliberately putting a spin on it? Never have I omitted hetero males in my post:

the emasculated male

disgruntled-from-the-beginning male

Any of those say not-a-heterosexual-male? I think you've missed my point entirely (which isn't necessarily a fault of your own; maybe I'm poor with my approach). I'll elaborate on that presently (but really, everything hereon leads up to the point).

***

Make arranged marriage also a male issue does not require arguing for same-sex unions - just the freedom to not get married to the person others have chosen for you.

Did I say same-sex unions need to be argued for? The fact that they have to be acknowledged (even if disapproved of) by authority can be very dangerous. They (authority) aren't as clueless as people think, they're just walking on eggshells.

So basically you consider it to be a zero-sum game.

Not so much as zero-sum game as being a ripe opportunity to quash whatever progress that's been made out to be accomplished. There are spinmeisters who can easily take an approach thus (and do so far more subtly than this): Shift the focus of the issue to a male issue -> Wait, males have issues? -> Desert

***

See my point now? To acknowledge it as also a male issue, you'll have to acknowledge (not necessarily approve) fringe groups within the male demographic who are likely a larger fraction of the males facing this issue to begin with. To not do so opens up too many roads without rails. Remember, I'm not denying it, this is a male issue as well. Nominally? Better not be (for the time being).

If you think it's easier to make them address female equality (which in these societies would entail women going outside traditional female gender roles) than to allow men going outside traditional male gender role I really have to question which is the most oppressed in these societies.

Again, I get the feeling you're deliberately trying to put the spin on what I'm saying. It is easier to address female egality through the addressing of women's issues than it is male issues. Is it easier to change male gender roles? Heck yes. But that's not necessarily working towards any kind of egality. Most of your notions require some kind of perfect-world scenario where everyone suddenly wises up and become a gentleman (and this is a common shortcoming with the people here, that you mix with likeminded activists you think the world is suddenly simpatico). The truth is, this can easily, among the population, create superfluous male dissatisfaction, tipping the current imbalance of sex further and further towards one side. You think already bigoted people will not use this as some kind of trump? Why risk widening that gap?

That's a separate issue which of course isn't to say...

I don't think it's a separate issue.

Female suicide victims are about 25% of suicide victims. Female homicide victims are about 33.3% of homicide victims. What is the magic limit where we should sweep this into the bag of men's issues?

So what's the cause of these suicides/homicides? Are all of them germane to sex/gender issues created by society?

My flair says egalitarian.

Egalitarian is usually a safeguard against being misconstrued as a radical men's activist or feminist. Many MRAs and feminists are egalitarian in principle / intent.

Hi, I suppose you're giving me the cold shoulder? Are you willing to entertain some questions I have? (Not related to my other post, but related to French toilets.)

Edit: Parisian, to be less general than 'French'.

Edit2: Maybe I should've just put the questions out there. This seems facetious otherwise. I will proceed with Edit3.

Edit3: Q:

Okay, so my google skills are grossly subpar and I'm just way too lazy (I'm sorry)... if you don't mind, what's the ratio of binary-sex public toilets to unisex alternatives? If you've been there, even a rough estimate would be greatly appreciated.

Then, what ratio of the unisex toilets are pay-per-use? Again, even a rough anecdotal figure would be really nice. Of the unisex toilets, how many are sanisettes (it appears sanisettes are no longer pay-per-use, though prior to 2006 they were largely barriered with a payment model; providing for the homeless seems to be one of if not the reason for stopping this practice)?

As I've said earlier, unisex toilets in schools and those used by certain services do not reflect the public model very well. I'm beginning to suspect Parisian toilets have lots of gateguards to chase away secondary-intent users, such as pay-per-use models, with, more than that, perhaps an attendant or custodian used to collect payment and permit use. This means that that amount of toilets have a constant human presence (but that's not to say some are not coin-operated, hence my asking for these ratios and even confirmations/confutations as I cannot say I know what I'm talking about). As for sanisettes, and perhaps coin-operated public toilets, they've got the additional barrier of state-modulation. I.e. You cannot use a sanisette while another is inside.

Paris really seems quite avant garde when it comes to toilets, and I don't think their model is very applicable on a global scale (~2.2mil people in Paris, ~7bil global population). If we merge toilets and keep them the same sizes as they are while not doubling the number of facilities, plumbing might face problems. In India, where the ratio of people to toilets (just the bowl) can go as much as 1:2500, they face clogging issues. Let's just say Parisian plumbing is leagues better than that, the toilet rolls would still be used up unnecessarily quickly; the bins as well (which can be seen as a good thing, for this means a higher guarantee of human presence; but then again, this manpower requirement might prove impracticable (I will speak of this presently) ). If we scale the toilets up in size, there'd be a lot more "centre-space" as opposed to "wall-space", which is very inadequate use of space in a toilet (or maybe not). Do you honestly think the Parisian model (if it even is ubiquitous enough a model in Paris) can be scaled up, and do you honestly think the Parisian model is safe (this is assuming a large number of these toilets have the aforementioned militia-esque security implementations while those around the world might not)?

I'm going to take a good guess and say most of Paris' toilets are well-protected in the first place. There are about ~5000 public toilets in Paris, which is really an alarmingly large number for just ~2.2mil people. This implies that it is not outside the scope of reality that most toilets are low traffic and will, at any given time, be used by, say, arbitrarily <4 people (of course, this is probably far from the reality). Of that number, it isn't exactly odd to have a very lopsided male-female ratio per quantum of time. What then? What if it's just 2 people: one intemperate and horny man, one woman? (Man can generally fend off man, as women can women, so I will not include these cases. Fending off, in this instance of discussion, is not just limited to fending off a physical altercation with physicality, but fending it off through prevention on the singular basis of their sex and what it would mean to the would-be perpetrator's chance of success -- a pre-fending-off, you could say.) Yet the incident rates seem to either show something about my weak google skills, or they really are very little if at all; I could find zero big commercial publications of altercations in a French unisex toilet. So you know what, maybe you're right, but I'm still not entirely convinced (as a matter of fact, I've seen arguments that women feel safer in unisex toilets, though I remain dubious as to the validity of that in a really anarchic example (meaning, your public toilets, not your unisex toilet in some restaurant or something) ). It is very easy to say that toilets be made unisex, it's a whole other thing to actually have that implemented. Toilets are very important facilities to productivity; depending on their implementation, mobility through space can be greatly stymied. I.e. people erring from their normal routes of travel; users bogarting the toilets, and bottlenecking people thusly; etc. Should we do away with urinals? (Male toilets have around twice the uric productivity as compared to female toilets; they have urinals and cubicles.) Because we'll also be needing a space for diaper changing stations among the various provisions necessary for infants, which are normally situated in female toilets. Provisions friendly towards the elderly and disabled (you can argue that such separation is already practiced)? There's so much more, but I'm way too lazy to think it through. I think there'd be a fair amount of altercation, much more-so than what it is now. Who will be liable should anything happen within these toilets (besides those involved in the altercation), and who will be willing to take up this liability? Perhaps a little facetiously said, but what would you have to say about the probable rise in paruresis?

PS: I have to put it out there that there's a load of intellectual dishonesty / laziness going on in this post (in fact, in all my posts). I have not traced the provenance of a large amount of the facts/figures, nor have I verified them. Worse than that, they've been pieced together in ways that, even if accurate at one point in time or another, could very well be anachronistic to each other.

Yes, that I get. That said, it's very much such a small segment that I don't see why it can't be swept into the bag of women's issues, which is far more pressing strategic in this case. That's not to say they shouldn't be served, but it would be far more prudent to present this -- especially given my few considerations -- as a women's issue; they're taking a step and you're asking them to take a leap instead. Not all your 'progressive' nations (on a state level) have legislated same-sex union, and you're expecting a largely Islamic nation, which has the stigma of being 'anti-progressive' (though I'm not one to espouse that view), you expect them to just outright address not only female egality but that of fringe communities (and the emasculated male)? This isn't a game without consequence; they're carefully plying the highwire, the Ayatollah Hamenei and his radicals on one side, our pervasive Western ideology on the other. How much internal opposition do you think this could face if they go in all guns blazing?

More that that, being nominally inclusive might create too large an opportunity for opposition to misappropriate and skew the agenda, ultimately diluting the support to women with de trop assistance to men. Sure, this, if successful, would be a lesser success than being nominally inclusive and succeeding, but it'll be a minor success nonetheless. Minor successes are very important, and have to be played reasonably conservatively, because even a minor success would grant other Islamic nations a level of confidence where conforming to our tastes of what's 'progressive' matters. In that respect, it's much more prudent to succeed minorly than to try majorly and fail; the impatience of your ideals should not supersede political expedience.

Then there's the fact that arranged marriage is broader than just marital bliss. What happens after the marriage? There are so many corollaries that arise from going into wedlock. Which do you think gets all the good handholds, male or female?

This sounds very congruous to a subset of issues the Western male faces in today's day and age, one that gets many Men's activists demonstrably impassioned. (I'll have to concede not digging further into the veracity and niceties of the quotation; I'm lazy.) So what do you think happens as the marriage matures? As the family dynamic matures? As the disgruntled-from-the-beginning male works himself into a position favourable to separation? Who, ultimately, bears the greater burden in a mutually uncongenial marriage? The male will be a victim, but we're forgetting that in this dynamic, it's likely the female is a victim as well, maybe even more-so than the male, given the typical latent factors that come tagged with marital entanglement. In India, even the dowry goes to the family of the groom, contrary to most Asian hymeneal tradition. If you're an MRA, you should be able to relate.

Quite frankly, part of me really doesn't care. I don't see why anyone -- men, women, any person in-between -- I don't see why this is at all an issue of such strong contention. It's just nominal. More than that, I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the idee fixe around these kinds of issues, owing much to their idealistic roots, not to mention anything about them being the product of a "selfless-narcissist's" thinking. It is largely the import we've placed on individualism that has opened a number of eyes to a mutated idea of what equality is. The sad truth is that men and women are different, and inequality is immutable. Inequality is the de facto equality. Part of me is really sad.

Such notions only exist because of the ego; barring the inequality, which persists in colonies as well, as seen through the eyes of an egotistic being (who may impute an ego unto an egoless being). The truth is, it is the ego that made inequality a bad thing to begin with. I.e. It is the ego that would disfavour to be less equal than an other, therefore inequality is bad.

the "worker bees" in the hierarchy are generally in their position because of force.

It is only force because we know that the forced identify with their ego. If they be an egoless creature, or a creature to whose ego you cannot relate, would you really care if they suffered? Do you hurt when you kill a fly? When you "steal" the ambrose of a swarm? Why should you care for a human being who chooses not to relate to his/her ego? He/she will not feel slighted in the least.

Generally those who see this as for some "colonial good" are those with the most to profit from it.

I can accept this as quite true. But it is also quite true, I accept without proof, that it is these people who profit and act towards personal ends that are best in a position to also provide for the good of man. Why do you think you have a computer at your fingertips, maybe a phone, and the ability to communicate with me? Were all things equal, we'd still be in some antediluvian age, like the industrial age or some further regression. You think we'd have enough resources to provide for everybody and still progress at that? Like any strategist, they ensure that resources are prioritised towards those who can further leverage it for more resources. This is the good of man. Their greed allows the "few" of us to thrive instead of having all of us live a meagre existence. It'll definitely be nice, and in fact better, if they're rewarded with a smaller personal profit such that today's inequality is lesser than it already is, but make no mistake, these people will still be at the seat of hierarchical superiority. People would still be dealt personal injustices.

Precisely. If we be without an ego, or we choose not to relate to our egos, won't we be engaging in these selfless acts? Why wouldn't one work in a sweatshop for a buck a week? Many people get to wear clothes (which really, without egos, why would they want clothes or anything for that matter?). We'll be just like the the bees, the ants, schools of mackerel, krill etc. Why, even, would the concept of wage exist, not to speak of the concept of deserving anything to begin with.

Generally, we make selfish, independent acts based on our own beliefs, desires, etc. that we identify to be who we are. Because of this, we are often indifferent to other peoples suffering.

No, it is because of our selfishness, and our peripheral awareness that other people are selfish, that suffering is made known to us. It is also because of our selfishness that, as you've said, we choose to ignore the manifest suffering of others. Let's call this Ego's Dilemma; it pretty much is.

If we take the opposite stance, and see ourselves simply as a "space" in which those thoughts, desires, etc. arise within and become no more than the awareness of that, how differently do you think our motives would be? Would we act differently towards others?

Would we act differently? Very. What if, on suspicion, bias, whatever, Alice gets the idea that the disposing off of Bob would be for the better of humanity? What's stopping Alice from killing Bob? Bob, being one with the experience of egodeath, he sure wouldn't care. As a matter of fact, given that knowledge, Bob should kill himself. So why should Alice care? In this world, Alice would only care because Bob cares, the people who love Bob cares, though she might interpret it as solely the consequence of her own care. If no one cares for themselves, there is no basis for caring for them. The reason you do not care for an object is that it does not care for itself: it might break, but it will not feel slighted; and if you do care for an object, you're anthropomorphising it, like we do animals, or more commonly, it is simply a loss to you. Why do you think we care about the trees? Because they feel hurt? Or is it because we need them? So what do you think about ignoring the ego? It will be a return to a savage world.

To relate to anything at all, must you first have some basis within yourself; I (and bazoid, who has done it far more succinctly) have repeated this in many unwieldy turns of phrase / sentences. Why is it that man is inclined to caring for a dog but not, say, a fish? Because dogs are more easily anthropomorphisable -- they share certain features, certain behaviour -- we begin the relation first to other humans (which stems from the relationship between I and Us), then to the dog; they are like us, but why does 'us' matter? because 'I' matters first; this kind of thing does not conceivably occur ex nihilo, kindness does not come from without. Adduce some kind of study if it does, because I must admit, I'm too lazy to furnish any citations. This idea can be applied to a finer degree, where humans are "anthropomorphisable" by default, where instead of ascribing broad human traits to man, you find yourself ascribing your own traits, and that of those you know, to man; and in this same way, it is why you can relate to some more than you can others. As a matter of fact, your argument is in itself an ideal that could not have been arrived at without first identifying with your ego. What you're appealing for is a partial or selective identification with one's ego, which is simply not possible for the same reasons I've stated. To remove the component of selfishness, you're essentially removing the component of selflessness, which by our discussion's definition, can be loosely said to be care and kindness for the other; true selflessness, you would not find selfless at all -- it is brutal, but then again, it wouldn't be -- the hammer will never weep for the nail; to not remove but to ignore the component of selfish urges on the other hand would mean that others would also ignore their selfish urges. Then what is personal justice between person and person? What is right and what is wrong, to the self that is. We'd be back to square one: where no one cares for a right and a wrong. This is the paradox of the ego -- okay, it's not a paradox per se, but it's close: you're either a savage with an ego, or you're a savage without.

Your assertion that you don't need any evidence because only a naive person would believe differently

Never have I made such assertions. I don't need to provide evidence because I'm supporting the status in quo. The burden of proof is not on me (incidentally, I'm lazy as well). You, on the other hand, are in support of change. Guess where that put's you beneath? Yup, you have to furnish the evidence (I am gracious enough to accept anecdotal evidence. Actually, it's not graciousness, I just do.).

France has unisex multi stall PUBLIC toilets? On a large scale? That would be interesting indeed, and may actually make me reconsider my stance. However, school toilets are not the same. Nor is any toilet that is adjunct to some other service (public pools, bath-houses), because such rooms are integral to the service, and there'll always be the scare-factor of staff being nearby.

You support a baseless tradition for no reason.

I have stated my reasons. You just don't accept them. Also, it is not baseless tradition (most tradition is not baseless).

Worker bees, -- no, bees -- as far as we know, don't have egos. Maybe they do, but it is not a verifiable experience, and by all suggestion, they don't. They will do what whatever it takes for the Queen, and consequently the hive, to prosper. This is not so much different from how sweatshop labourers in China, Bangladesh, et al, sex-workers plying under duress in Indonesia, Thailand, you get it -- this is not so much different from how these poor people are subdued into such roles to toil for their own survival, and in the larger picture, some "colonial" good; this is not so much different from how men and women die in wars, how people are taken advantage of by more capable people (capable qua our social structure).

It's funny, because in many ways it is our egos that make us "human", because it is only with our egos that we know other people have egos, and we therefore know that they are capable of "suffering". From the womb that is ego, empathy nurtures. If we cease to relate to our egos, the act of suffering will cease to exist, but the acts of subjugation that we deem to cause suffering would continue.

Therefore, my point is that it would seem to me the sign of an evolved species is one that lives conscious of it's connection to each other and of their actions, so as not to bring suffering to others.

Wrong. Because we don't identify with our ego, it is fair that others don't identify with their egos, therefore it is completely okay to have them "suffer".

Therefore, my point is that it would seem to me the sign of an evolved species is one that lives conscious of it's connection to each other and of their actions, so as not to bring suffering to others.